Matching vendor offerings to service provider requirements

ABSTRACT

A method and system for using a graphical user interface for display and navigation of a three-dimensional navigational cube to assess vendors for meeting requirements of a service provider for deploying a selected service. A three-dimensional navigational cube configured to be navigated is generated and displayed. Mutually orthogonal axes of the navigational cube comprise subservices that the service provider must have to implement the selected service, vendors able to implement at least one of the subservices, and requirements stipulated by the service provider that are to be met for implementing the subservices. Selections sequentially received from a user include: one or more planar sections of the navigational cube, a vector of co-linear subcubes within one of the planar sections, and a single subcube within the selected vector which selects a vendor able to meet requirements for implementing the subservice for the selected single subcube.

This application is a continuation application claiming priority to Ser.No. 11/677,594, filed Feb. 22, 2007.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The invention relates to the field of consulting assessmentmethodologies and tools and in particular, the invention relates to anassessment methodology for matching vendor offerings to service providerrequirements.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

In order to offer a service to customers it is vital to understand whichtechnological requirements are essential for implementing the service.Once the technological requirements have been understood, vendors needto be located in order to provide the service provider with thecapabilities that are required to do the job.

Often, the process of finding suppliers, partners or vendors is alaborious task. For example, is it advisable to select the vendor thatwas previously used on a project and is trusted, even though they mightnot have the right skills for the job—or alternatively, should a vendorbe selected because the vendor is cheaper than another?

Thus, there are many factors to take into account when trying to deploya new service for the first time. Traditionally, the way to solve thisproblem has been to employ a number of consultants. A consultant mayrepresent a company (Company A) and hence the consultant will provideadvice and guidance with respect to the services and goods of thecompany that the consultant represents. However, the consultant'scompany may be ‘tied into’ particular third party products and services;i.e., the company has agreements with third parties for the supply ofgoods and services, and hence the third parties goods and services maynot give the flexibility and versatility required, but the price offeredby Company A may be very good. Hence a decision has to be made as towhether flexibility and versatility are to be sacrificed over price. Thesolution often is to find another consultant who will give arecommendation about their own company (company B) and thus the processstarts again until the end results is a number of recommendations bydifferent consultants with often conflicting views and products.

Hence, there is a need for a method and system for finding suppliers,partners, vendors, etc. that overcomes at least one of theaforementioned prevailing difficulties.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The present invention provides a method for assessing vendors of varyingcapability for meeting requirements of a service provider for deployinga selected service in a service delivery environment, said method beingimplemented by execution of program code by a processor of a computersystem, said method comprising:

receiving a request from a service provider requesting theidentification of at least one vendor who can meet the serviceprovider's requirements for deploying the selected service;

identifying a plurality of subservices that the service provider musthave in order to implement the requested service;

identifying a plurality of vendors, each vendor being able to implementat least one subservice of the plurality of subservices;

identifying a plurality of requirements to be met for implementing eachsubservice of the plurality of subservices; and

for each vendor: determining an indication of whether said each vendoris able or unable to meet each requirement for implementing eachsubservice and storing said indication in a data store of the computersystem.

The present invention provides a computer system comprising a processorand a computer readable memory unit coupled to the processor, saidmemory unit containing software code portions that when executed by theprocessor implement a method for assessing vendors of varying capabilityfor meeting requirements of a service provider for deploying a selectedservice in a service delivery environment, said method comprising:

receiving a request from a service provider requesting theidentification of at least one vendor who can meet the serviceprovider's requirements for deploying the selected service;

identifying a plurality of subservices that the service provider musthave in order to implement the requested service;

identifying a plurality of vendors, each vendor being able to implementat least one subservice of the plurality of subservices;

identifying a plurality of requirements to be met for implementing eachsubservice of the plurality of subservices; and for each vendor:determining an indication of whether said each vendor is able or unableto meet each requirement for implementing each subservice and storingsaid indication in a data store of the computer system.

The present invention provides a computer program product loadable intoan internal memory of a computer system, comprising software codeportions for performing, when said software code portions are executedon a processor of the computer system, a method for assessing vendors ofvarying capability for meeting requirements of a service provider fordeploying a selected service in a service delivery environment, saidmethod comprising:

receiving a request from a service provider requesting theidentification of at least one vendor who can meet the serviceprovider's requirements for deploying the selected service;

identifying a plurality of subservices that the service provider musthave in order to implement the requested service;

identifying a plurality of vendors, each vendor being able to implementat least one subservice of the plurality of subservices;

identifying a plurality of requirements to be met for implementing eachsubservice of the plurality of subservices; and

for each vendor: determining an indication of whether said each vendoris able or unable to meet each requirement for implementing eachsubservice and storing said indication in a data store of the computersystem.

The present invention provides a method for providing a vendorassessment service to a service provider to enable the service providerto select at least one vendor for meeting requirements of the serviceprovider for deploying a selected service in a service deliveryenvironment, said method being implemented by execution of program codeby a processor of a computer system, said method comprising

receiving a request from a service provider requesting theidentification of at least one vendor who can meet the serviceprovider's requirements for deploying the selected service;

identifying a plurality of subservices that the service provider musthave in order to implement the requested service;

identifying a plurality of vendors, each vendor being able to implementat least one subservice of the plurality of subservices;

identifying a plurality of requirements to be met for implementing eachsubservice of the plurality of subservices; and

for each vendor: determining an indication of whether said each vendoris able or unable to meet each requirement for implementing eachsubservice and storing said indication in a data store of the computersystem.

The preset invention provides a three-dimensional navigational cubebeing displayed on a display device of a computer system, saidnavigational cube comprising a three-dimensional configuration havingmutually orthogonal axes that include a first axis, a second axis, and athird axis:

wherein the navigational cube is configured to be navigated for use by aservice provider to enable the service provider to select at least onevendor for meeting requirements of the service provider for deploying aselected service in a service delivery environment;

wherein a plurality of subservices of the selected service, a pluralityof vendors, and a plurality of requirements are respectively representedon the first axis, the second axis, and the third axis to defineelements at each unique combination of subservice, vendor, andrequirement;

wherein each element is transparent or non-transparent such that thenavigational cube comprises a a plurality of transparent elements and aplurality of non-transparent elements;

wherein each transparent element denotes an indication that said eachvendor is unable to meet said each requirement for implementing saideach subservice; and

wherein each non-transparent element denotes an indication that saideach vendor is able to meet said each requirement for implementing saideach subservice.

The present invention provides a method and system for findingsuppliers, partners, vendors, etc. that overcomes at least one of theprevailing difficulties in the prior art.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 is a block diagram showing a known computer system in which thepresent invention may be implemented.

FIG. 2 is a block diagram showing the components of the assessmentcomponent of an embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 3 is a block diagram showing an example of an engagement type dataset of an embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 4 is a block diagram showing an example of an assessment data setof an embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 5 shows a navigation cube for navigating three dimensional data ofan embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 6 illustrates a selected plane of the navigation cube in accordancewith an embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 7 illustrates another selected plane of the navigation cube inaccordance with an embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 8 is a flow chart showing the operational steps of the assessmentcomponent in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 9 shows a flow chart describing the operation steps of thenavigation cube in accordance with an embodiment of the presentinvention.

FIG. 10. shows process steps of an embodiment of the present invention.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

Viewed from a first aspect, the present invention provides an assessmentmethod for determining a match of vendor offerings to service providerrequirements in a service delivery environment. The assessment methodcomprises of: receiving a request from a service provider requesting theidentification of a vendor who can meet the service provider'srequirements for deploying a selected service; identifying a technologycomponent required to deploy the selected service; determining for theidentified technology component a requirement to be met in deploying thetechnology component; performing an impact assessment to determine theimpact of the requirement against a vendor identified as offering theidentified technology component; and determining if the identifiedvendor meets the service provider's requirements, in dependence of theperformed impact assessment.

Performing the impact assessment may comprise performing an impactassessment on each vendor identified as offering the service.

Determining whether the identified vendor meets the service provider'srequirements may comprise generating a list identifying each of thevendors meeting the service provider's requirements. Generating the listmay comprise assigning a weighting to each of the vendors in order torank the vendors by their suitability.

Performing an impact assessment may comprise performing an impactassessment on the identified technology component. The impact assessmentmay comprise assessing business metrics to determine the impact on therequester's business of implementing the selected service.

Performing an impact assessment may comprise deriving an absolute scoreindex indicative of the importance of deploying the service against therequirement drivers and a vendor.

The assessment may comprise determining at least one subservice which isrequired to deploy the requested service.

Performing an impact assessment further may comprise determining thevendor's suitability of providing the selected service.

The present invention provides a visualization component for viewing andnavigating the impact assessment, the selected service, the list ofidentified vendors, and the at least one requirement driver in athree-dimensional view.

Viewed from a second aspect, the present invention provides anassessment component for determining a match of vendor offerings toservice provider requirements in a service delivery environment, theassessment component comprising: a receiving component for receiving arequest from a service provider requesting the identification of avendor who can meet the service provider's requirements for deploying aselected service; an assessment engine for identifying a technologycomponent required to deploy the selected service; the assessment enginedetermining for the identified technology component a requirement driverto be met in deploying the technology component; the assessment engineperforming an impact assessment to determine the impact of therequirement driver against a list of vendors identified as offering thetechnology component; and the assessment engine determining if theidentified vendor meets the service providers requirements, independence of the performed impact assessment.

The assessment engine may comprise performing an impact assessment oneach vendor identified as offering the service.

An assessment engine may generate a list identifying each of the vendorsmeeting the service provider's requirements.

The impact assessment may be performed on each of the vendors identifiedin the list of vendors.

An assessment component may perform an impact assessment on identifiedtechnology components.

The impact assessment may assess business metrics to determine theimpact on the requester's business of implementing the selected service.

The assessment component may derive an absolute score index indicativeof the importance of deploying the service against the requirementdrivers and a vendor.

The assessment component may comprise determining at least onesubservice which is required to deploy the requested service.

Performing an impact assessment may comprise determining the vendor'ssuitability of providing the selected service.

The present invention provides a visualization component for viewing andnavigating the impact assessment, the selected service, the at least oneidentified vendor, and the at least one requirement driver in athree-dimensional view.

Viewed from a third aspect, the present invention provides a dataprocessing system for determining a match of vendor offerings to serviceprovider requirements in a service delivery environment, the dataprocessing system comprising: a central processing unit, a memory deviceand a storage device adapted for carrying out the invention as describedsupra.

Viewed from a fourth aspect, the present invention provides a navigationcube for navigating three dimensional data in a data processing system,the navigation cube comprising: means for receiving an instruction froma user to select an engagement set, the engagement set comprising dataindicative of a selected service and identified service providersproviding the selected service; means for receiving at least onerequirement driver which must be met in order to deploy the selectedservice; means for receiving an impact assessment data set performed onthe engagement set and the at least one requirement driver; and meansfor displaying the impact assessment data set along with the selectedservice, the at least one identified service provider and the at leastone requirement driver in a three-dimensional view.

Viewed from a fifth aspect, the present invention provides a computerprogram product loadable into the internal memory of a computer system,comprising software code portions for performing, when said softwarecode portions are executed on a processor of the computer system amethod for carrying out the present invention.

Viewed from a sixth aspect, the present invention provides a service forassessing a match of vendor offerings to service provider requirementsin a service delivery environment, the assessment method comprising:receiving a request from a service provider requesting theidentification of a vendor who can meet the service provider'srequirements for deploying a selected service; identifying a technologycomponent required to deploy the selected service; determining for theidentified technology component a requirement to be met in deploying thetechnology component; performing an impact assessment to determine theimpact of the requirement against a vendor identified as offering theidentified technology component; and determining if the identifiedvendor meets the service providers requirements, in dependence of theperformed impact assessment.

Referring to FIG. 1, a computer system 100 is shown in which embodimentsof the present invention may be implemented. The computer system 100 hasa processor, namely a central processing unit 101, with primary storagein the form of memory 102 (RAM and ROM). The memory 102 stores anoperating system 115, programs such as applications 116, and programinformation and data acted on or created by the programs. The programinformation includes the operating system code for the computer system100 and application code for applications running on the processor ofthe computer system 100. Secondary storage includes optical disk storage103 and magnetic disk storage 104. Data and program information can alsobe stored and accessed from the secondary storage. The RAM, ROM, andsecondary storage are computer readable memory units into which softwarecode portions may be stored, said software code portions capable ofbeing executed by the processor of the computer system 100 to performthe methods of the present invention.

The computer system 100 includes a network connection means 105 forinterfacing the computer system 100 to a network such as a local areanetwork (LAN) or the Internet. The computer system 100 may also haveother external source communication means such as a fax modem ortelephone connection.

The central processing unit 101 comprises inputs in the form of, asexamples, a keyboard 106, a mouse 107, voice input 108, and a scanner109 for inputting text, images, graphics or the like. Outputs from thecentral processing unit 100 may include a display means 110 (e.g., adisplay device such as a display on a computer screen), a printer 111,sound output 112, video output 113, etc.

In a distributed system, a computer system 100 as shown in FIG. 1 may beconnected via a network connection 105 to a server (not shown) on whichapplications may be run remotely from the central processing unit 101which is then referred to as a client system.

Applications may run on the computer system 100 from a storage means103, 104 or via a network connection 105 which may include spread sheetapplications, database applications and other storage and retrievalmechanisms.

FIG. 2 shows the components of an embodiment of the present invention.The present invention provides an assessment component 200 fordetermining a suitable match of vendors to requirements stipulated by aservice provider. The assessment component 200 may be located on thecomputer system 100 of FIG. 1 for accessing locally by the computersystem 100 or alternatively, the assessment component 200 may beinstalled on a server (not shown) for accessing the assessment componentvia the network connection 105. It should be understood that the termvendor is meant to comprise any party offering services and/ortechnology.

The assessment component 200 may be installed as part of an ‘add on’ toexisting consultancy tools or as part of an existing consultancy toolsuite.

The assessment component 200 comprises a number of subcomponents whichinterface and interact with each other in order to analyze a serviceprovider's requirements and to determine the most suitably matchedvendors. The subcomponents comprise a receiving component 205, aselector component 210, a visualization component 225, an assessmentengine 220, a first data store 215 comprising sets of engagements typesand a second data store 230 comprising the output of the assessmentcomponent 200 in the form of an assessment set. The data store 215 andthe data store 230 may each be in RAM, ROM, the optical disk storage103, the magnetic disk storage 104, etc. (see FIG. 1). Each of thesesubcomponents will now be explained in turn.

The receiving component 205 receives data inputs for populating the datastore 215. The data is in the form of data concerning types of services.Also, for each service the subservices required to implement the serviceand for each subservice, the vendors offering the subservice and theparticular capabilities of each of the vendors. For clarity it is to heunderstood that a vendor is any third party who provides services and/ortechnology. An example of the data structure is as follows in Table 1.

TABLE 1 Vendor and/or Service Subservices partner Capabilities Tripleplay ISP-portal Company A Supports Company B standard x Company CCompany D Mail services Company A Company B IPTV-portal Company DCompany C Video-on-demand Company A With a response Company B time of XCompany C number of Company D seconds Personal Video Company D Company ERecorder Company G Company B TV head-end Company H Company A Company E

This data is stored in the data store 215 for interfacing with theselector component 210. FIG. 3 also details the engagement type data asstored in the data store 215. FIG. 3 shows that for a digital mediaengagement type, the data store will store information regarding theservices 305 needed to deploy a digital media solution 300, thesuppliers and/or vendors 310 offering digital media solutions 300, andthe capabilities of each of the suppliers and/or vendors 315.

Returning to FIG. 2, the selector component 210 is a selecting functionwhich allows a user to select from a list, the type or solution theservice provider wishes to deploy. The user may be the service provideror one who is acting on behalf of the service provider. For example, theservice provider may be a telecommunication service provider wishing todeploy a triple play service; i.e., an integrated voice, video anddata-IP solution to their customers, or a service provider wishing todeploy a biometric solution (fingerprint or retina scanning andrecognition solution) to a specific customer base.

The selector component 210 receives the selection from the user andperforms a lookup in the data store to locate the subservices requiredto deploy the service and the vendors who are able to supply thesubservice. The user is also presented with the capabilities of thevendor's goods and services. Once the selector component 210 hasperformed a lookup in the data store 215 and retrieved the relevantinformation, a trigger is sent to the assessment engine 220 requestingthe assessment engine 220 to perform an assessment on the engagement set215.

The assessment engine 220 begins by displaying to the user via thevisualization component 225, a series of questions in order to gatherfacts about the user's business in order to perform a ‘Where-to-goassessment’. The purpose of the ‘where-to-go assessment’ is to workthrough each of the subservices associated with the requestor's servicethey wish to deploy in order to assess the requestor's current positionwith respect to the implementation of the subservice and where the userwishes to be with the subservice or technology according to theirstrategy and business propositions. For each subservice the user isasked to supply information about whether the business already has thesubservice. For example, if the subservice is an IPTV portal—the user isasked whether they already have an implemented IPTV portal. If theanswer is ‘no’, and this subservice is vital to the implementation ofthe user's triple play service the assessment engine 220 assigns arating to the IPTV subservice of, for example, 2—indicating that this isa subservice that the user ‘must have’ in order to implement theservice. The assessment engine 220 performs this assessment for eachsubservice identified by the selector component 210. The output of theassessment is a list of ‘must have services and/or technologies’ and isstored in the assessment set data store 230.

The assessment engine 220 performs an impact assessment on each of theidentified ‘must have subservices and/or technologies’. The assessmentengine 220 uses a number of criteria to determine an assessment scorefor each ‘must have’ subservice. For example, the criteria may be asfollows: Investment; Operational costs; Involves more than one part(complex project management); Personnel; Complexity; Branding exposure;Value for customer; Assumed ROI (length); Customer demand (assumed).

Thus, for each ‘must have’ a determination is made as to what the impactof implementing the subservice would be on a specified criteria (e.g.,low, medium or high impact) as is shown for an example in Table 2 below.

TABLE 2 Criteria Impact Investment High Operational costs Medium Complexproject management High Personnel Medium Complexity Low Brandingexposure Medium Value for customer High Assumed ROI (length) LowCustomer demand (assumed) High

As a series of criterion is being assessed, it is noted that thedifferent criterion will have a different importance factor fordifferent requestors. Thus the assessment engine 220 determines aweighting factor indicative of the importance to the requestor of theassessment criteria. This is shown in the Table 3 below.

TABLE 3 Criteria Impact Weighting Investment High High Operational costsMedium Medium Complex project management High Low Personnel Medium HighComplexity Low Low Branding exposure Medium Low Value for customer HighHigh Assumed ROI (length) Low High Customer demand (assumed) High High

The assessment engine 220, for each assessed criteria, multiplies theimpact score by the weighting to derive an absolute score index. Theassessment engine 220 adds each of the absolute score indexes togetherto derive a total impact assessment score. The total impact assessmentscore is stored in the data store as part of the impact assessment 410.

Each Impact factor and Weighting factor in Table 3 has an associatednumerical value. For example, High, Medium, Low for the Impact factorsmay have have an associated numerical value of 3, 2, 1, respectively,and High, Medium, Low for the Weighting factors may have have anassociated numerical value of 5, 3, 1, respectively. For, the precedingexemplary numerical values of the Impact factors and the Weightingfactors, the total absolute scores are 15 (Investment), 6 (OperationalCosts), 3 (Complex project management), 10 (Personnel), 1 (Complexity),2 (Branding exposure), 15 (Value for customer), 5 (Assumed ROI), 15(Customer demand), and the total impact assessment score is 72.

The impact on the individual criteria (such as the individual impacts onthe impact criteria listed in Table 3) and the total impact assessmentscore each constitute a measure of impact on the specified criteria ofimplementing the subservice.

Using the above scoring system—the lower the total absolute score thebetter. However using a different scoring scheme it will be appreciatedby a person skilled in the art that other forms and variation of theabove can be contemplated without departing from the scope of theinvention.

The assessment engine 220 also performs an impact assessment on thepartners and vendors which the selection component 210 identified asoffering the identified subservices. For example, if the subservice isan IPTV portal, then company A, B and C may be identified as providersof an IPTV portal. For each identified supplier/vendor an impactassessment is performed by the assessment engine 220. Firstly, theassessment engine 220 performs a ‘where to go’ assessment and identifiesthe suppliers and/or vendors that the user wishes to provide their ‘musthave’ service. The selected preferred suppliers or vendors are added toa preference list and stored in the suppliers and vendors assessmentdata set in the data store 405.

The assessment engine 220 determines, via information received from theuser as specified by the service provider, a target assessment of anideal supplier and/or vendor; i.e. rating most important characteristicthat the service provider would like a vendor/supplier to have in termsof specified criteria.

An example of vendor targets is shown for specified vendor assessmentcriteria in the Table 4 below for the vendor denoted as Company A withrespect to the subservice of IPTV-portal.

Partner/Vendor Strategy Subservice: IPTV-portal Company: A

TABLE 4 Criteria Target Completeness of the service/delivery HighCompetence High Service and support High Price HighReputation/image/brand High References High Relations to client HighFuture presence High Standards and openness High

The assessment engine 220 proceeds to carry out an actual assessment ofeach potential vendor of the specific service or technology, for exampleIPTV, against the assigned rating of an ideal vendor. The actualassessment determines how far away the potential vendor is in reachingthe criterion with respect to the ‘must have’ service or technology. Theassessment engine 220 prompts the user, via the visualization component225, to enter a value against each criterion to indicate how far awaythe potential supplier/vendor is from the ideal supplier/vendor.

An example is shown in Table 5 below.

TABLE 5 Criteria Target Actual Completeness of the service/delivery HighHigh Competence High High Service and support High High Price HighMedium Reputation/image/brand High High References High Low Relations toclient High High Future presence High Low Standards and openness HighLow

Next, the assessment engine 220, via the visualization component 225,prompts the user to enter a weighting score for each of the criterion inorder to differentiate between each criterion and the partner/vendorbeing assessed. An example is shown in Table 6 below.

TABLE 6 Criteria Target Actual Weight Completeness of theservice/delivery High High Low Competence High High Low Service andsupport High High Medium Price High Medium High Reputation/image/brandHigh High Medium References High Low Low Relations to client High HighLow Future presence High Low Medium Standards and openness High LowMedium

Next, the assessment engine 220 determines an absolute score index thatreflects how well the supplier or vendor complies with the ideal partneror vendor and the assessed importance of each assessment criteria. TheTarget score, Actual score, and Weight of High, Medium, and Low in Table6 have associated numerical values. To determine the absolute scoreindex, the assessment engine 220 takes the actual score for eachassessment criterion and subtracts the actual score for each assessmentcriterion from the target score for each assessment criterion. Then, foreach score, the weight given to each assessment criterion is multipliedby the calculated score thus deriving an absolute score index of eachassessment criteria. This calculation may yield negative values for theabsolute score index if the assessed partner or vendor scores higherthan the target. For each vendor or supplier, the absolute score indexesof the assessment criteria are added together to determine a totalvendor assessment score which is stored for each vendor or supplier inthe vendors assessment set 405 of FIG. 4.

The absolute score indexes and the total vendor assessment score eachconstitute a measure of an extent to which each vendor is able to meetspecified targets for specified vendor assessment criteria pertaining toeach subservice.

Lastly, the assessment engine 220 assesses the requirements of each ofthe ‘must have service and/or technologies’. Most of these requirementswill be non-functional requirements represented by a single figure, forexample, a requirement that the service must support 10,000 users. Otherrequirements may be of a binary nature, for example, does the vendorsupport MPEG 2—yes or no?

The requirements assessment is performed in two stages, firstly a‘where-to-go’ assessment is carried out by documenting the client'starget criterion—i.e. MPEG2 must be supported—yes or no? If the answeris determined as ‘yes’—the client's target criterion is given aweighting of ‘high’ to indicate that this is a must have technologyrequirement. Secondly, the client is asked to ‘weight’ the importance ofthe ‘must have’ technology requirement, for example, as a high, mediumor low importance. This two stage assessment is carried out for eachrequirement listed or selected via the client.

For example in Table 7.

TABLE 7 Target Requirement Score Target Weight Ref date MPEG2 2 2 2 CIO4Q No. of users or 1 10,000 3 CIO 4Q households

The final step is to set scores for each requirement and vendor. Foreach short listed vendor a score is provided representing this vendor'sactual capability. For example, if a particular vendor is able to meetthe requirement, the vendor is assigned a score of, for example, 2.However, if the vendor is only able to partially meet the requirements,the vendor will be assigned a score of, for example, 1 etc.

As previously explained, the weighting of for the target requirement maybe represented by a score in a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ format or it can bea non-functional requirement for example, the number of users perhousehold. For this reason these values cannot determine the bestpossible mix of services and partner or vendor for each requirement. Ifany assessments of these requirement drivers have been carried outbefore for the same service or technology in the same engagement set forthe same partner or vendor, the score can be reused by extracting themout of the assessment set. The assessed weights will normally not bereused as they typically will be specific for each client.

Finally the total requirement assessment score for each of theshort-listed vendors is as follows:

Total requirement assessment score=score(i)*weight(i)

wherein the integer i indexes the requirements and is stored for eachvendor or supplier in the requirements assessment set 415 of FIG. 4.

The output of the assessment tool is a list of vendors that meet therequestor's requirements. The list may be weighted to indicate a first,second and third match etc. This is stored in the requirementsassessment data set 415 as shown in FIG. 4.

The total requirements assessment score is a measure of an extent towhich each vendor is able to meet specified requirements for pertainingto each subservice.

Each of the impact assessments is stored in a data store 230. This isshown in FIG. 4, wherein the totality of the impact assessments form anassessment set comprising of each of the ‘where to go assessments’ 400,the impact assessments 410, the vendor assessments 405 and each of therequirements assessments 415.

A visualization component 225 provides navigational functionality in theform of a navigation cube as is shown with reference to FIG. 5. Thenavigation cube 500 provides a framework which enables a requester toload the requested information from the selector component 210 into thenavigation cube 500. The navigation cube 500 provides the ability tonavigate three dimensional data. This is shown by the three axis 505,510 and 515 of the navigation cube 500, namely vendors 510, services andtechnologies (i.e., subservices) 505 and requirements 520. The threeaxis forming in their totality the engagement set 215 for a requester'svalue proposition; i.e. their service or technology requirements.

The navigation cube 500 may be implemented in computer software andallows a user to manipulate and rotate the navigation cube 500 in manydifferent directions in order to view the engagement set data throughdifferent planes.

The navigation cube 500 allows all interrelated elements (i.e.,subcubes) of the navigation cube 500 to be visualized by using a chosencolor (i.e., green, blue red) as represented by differential shading asindicated in FIG. 5 (as well as in FIGS. 6-9), for example, blue forpartners and vendors, red for requirements and green for services andtechnologies.

The navigation cube 500 when loaded with an engagement set allows theviewing and inspection of the assessed numerical scores of eachcombination of services and technologies, partners and vendors andrequirements as calculated by the assessment component. Via thenavigation cube 500 is it easy to view and understand which vendorsprovide the most suitable match to the requestor's requirements.

Once the navigation cube 500 has been loaded with the engagement set andassessment set, various views can be selected by viewing individualplanes, vectors or single elements in order to inspect which vendorsupports specific services and technologies, as is shown with referenceto FIG. 6.

FIG. 6 shows a selected plane detailing the assessment results forcompany B. Here it is shown that there are many elements 600 which aretransparent and other elements 605 which are non-transparent (e.g., havecolored faces in FIG. 6). The transparent elements show there is norelevant data in which to populate the elements with and the coloredelements indicating the population of data with regards to the discreteelements. For example, the colored elements 605 show that company Bsupports and can provide IPTV-portal services, video-on-demand servicesand TV head end service. The transparent elements 600 indicate theservices and technologies which company B does not support or provide;i.e., ISP-portal, mail services and PVR. Each of these elements aredisplayed against the requirement drivers; i.e. the number of users perhousehold, availability, scalability, MPEG2, MPEG4 and WM9. Thereforewhen viewing the engagement and assessments sets through this plane ofthe navigation cube, one can see the company B can provide a TV head endwhich meets the requirements of number of users, availability,scalability, MPEG2, MPEG4 and WM9. However, when it comes to IPTVportals, company B can not provide an IP-TV portal meeting the MPEG4requirement.

The selected plane of FIG. 6 can be turned through various aspects toprovide easier viewing of certain aspects. In the example, of FIG. 7, itis clearly shown that company B only supports MPEG4 in their TV head-endoffering and not for the IPTV-portal of for their VoD offering.

A user may also select only one specific service or technology ofinterest which is being offered by a single partner or vendor and thus asingle vector can be viewed. Further, when selecting a single element,each of the assessed weightings can also be displayed.

FIGS. 8 and 9 shows a flow chart describing the operation steps of thenavigation cube 500.

In FIG. 8, at step 800, an engagement set is loaded into the navigationcube 500. The navigation cube 500 is exploded and labeled at step 805and as is shown at step 810. Once the navigation cube 500 is populatedand exploded, the user can select a number of different planes tonavigate through. For example, at step 815 the user can select a redplane (i.e., a Requirements plane) and navigate through the requirementdrivers for that particular engagement set at step 830. Alternatively atstep 820 and step 835, the user can navigate through a blue plane (i.e.,a Partners and Vendors plane). At step 825, the user can navigatethrough a green plane (i.e., a Services and Technologies plane).

Moving onto FIG. 9, at step 900, the user whilst navigating through theservices and technologies plane can navigate further and view a singlepartner and vendor plane showing all the interrelated elements (as shownin FIG. 7). Moving onto to step 905 and step 925, the user is also ableto select a vertical vector to view a single requirement across allservices and technologies. If the user does not wish to view a verticalvector, the user can instead at step 910 view a single service andtechnology across all requirements drivers. From this view, a singleelement representing a requirement driver can be selected and viewed asa single entity at step 915 and 920. Step 920 enables the user todisplay a single element of the vertical vector displayed at step 915(e.g., by selecting the single element with a selection device such asby clicking a mouse when navigating the navigational cube 500 of FIG.5), wherein the single element holds the total impact assessment score,the total vendor assessment score, and the total requirement assessmentscore.

Referring to FIG. 10, the process steps of an embodiment of the presentinvention are shown. At step 1000 and step 1005, the user selects thetype of service they wish to implement via the selector component 210.The assessment component 225, using the selected information performs alookup in an engagement type data store to retrieve the subservices thatare required to be implemented in order to deploy the service. For eachidentified subservice, the assessment component 225 locates a vendorwhich can supply the service and vendors capabilities. At step 1010, theassessment component 225 performs a ‘where-to-go’ assessment todetermine a set of ‘must have’ services and technologies. If theassessment component can not generate any ‘must have’ technologies andor services at determination 1015, control moves back to step 1000 andthe user is required to enter further information. However, if theassessment component can generate at least one ‘must have’, controlmoves to step 1020 and the assessment component performs an impactassessment in order to compute an absolute score index which is storedin the data store 230.

Next in steps 1025 and 1030 the assessment engine 225 performs awhere-to-go assessment on each vendor identified as offering one of the‘must have’ services or technologies in order at step 530. At step 1035a determination is made to identify whether any partner and/or vendorsprovide any ‘must have’ services or technologies. If the determinationis positive, control moves to step 1040 and the ‘where-to-go’requirements are calculated and weighted as explained previously andstored in the assessment set data store along with the othercalculations and weightings. At step 1050 a list is generated or thedata is loaded into the navigation cube detailing the partners andvendors whom are can meet the requestor's requirements.

While particular embodiments of the present invention have beendescribed herein for purposes of illustration, many modifications andchanges will become apparent to those skilled in the art. Accordingly,the appended claims are intended to encompass all such modifications andchanges as fall within the true spirit and scope of this invention.

What is claimed is:
 1. A method for using a graphical user interface(GUI) for display and navigation of a three-dimensional navigationalcube to assess vendors of varying capability for meeting requirements ofa service provider for deploying a selected service in a servicedelivery environment, said method comprising: a processor of a computersystem generating and displaying, by a display device of the computersystem, to a user a three-dimensional navigational cube configured to benavigated, said navigational cube aligned along three mutuallyorthogonal axes that include a first axis, a second axis, and a thirdaxis, wherein subservices of a plurality of subservices that the serviceprovider must have in order for the service provider to implement theselected service, vendors able to implement at least one subservice ofthe plurality of subservices, and requirements stipulated by the serviceprovider that are to be met for implementing the plurality ofsubservices by the plurality of vendors are respectively represented onthe first axis, the second axis, and the third axis to define a subcubeat each unique combination of subservice, vendor, and requirement,wherein said displaying the navigational cube comprises displaying eachsubcube as being transparent or non-transparent such that the displayedsubcubes comprise at least one transparent subcube and one or morenon-transparent subcubes, wherein each transparent subcube denotes anindication that said each vendor on the second axis is unable to meetsaid each requirement on the third axis for implementing said eachsubservice on the first axis, wherein each non-transparent subcubedenotes an indication that said each vendor on the second axis is ableto meet said each requirement on the third axis for implementing saideach subservice on the first axis, wherein each face of eachnon-transparent subcube is orthogonal to the first axis, the secondaxis, or the third axis and is colored with a first color, a secondcolor, and a third color, respectively, and as a consequence, each faceof the navigational cube that is orthogonal to the first axis, thesecond axis, or the third axis is colored with the first color, thesecond color, or the third color, respectively, and wherein the firstcolor, the second color, and the third color are different colors; aftersaid displaying the navigational cube, said processor receiving aselection on the display device, from the user, of one or more planarsections of the navigational cube, wherein each selected planar sectionis independently orthogonal to the first axis, the second axis, or thethird axis and is characterized by the subservices, the vendors, or therequirements, respectively, having a same value for each subcube in eachplanar section; in response to said receiving the selection of eachplanar section, said processor generating and displaying, by the displaydevice, to the user an image of each selected planar section byisolating each selected planar section within the navigational cube andtransforming each isolated selected planar section to the displayedimage of each isolated selected planar section, wherein said displayingeach selected planar section comprises depicting each subcube in eachselected planar section as being transparent or non-transparent anddisplaying each exposed face of each non-transparent subcube in eachselected planar section as colored with the first color, the secondcolor, or the third color if each selected planar section is orthogonalto the first axis, the second axis, or the third axis, respectively;after said displaying the image of one planar section of the one or moreselected planar sections, said processor receiving a selection on thedisplay device, from the user, of a vector of co-linear subcubes withinthe one planar section, wherein if the one planar section is orthogonalto the first axis, the second axis, or the third axis, then the selectedvector of co-linear subcubes is parallel to either the second or thirdaxis, the first or third axis, or the first or second axis,respectively; in response to said receiving the selection of the vectorof co-linear subcubes, said processor generating and displaying, by thedisplay device, to the user an image of the selected vector of co-linearsubcubes; after said displaying the image of the selected vector ofco-linear subcubes, said processor receiving a selection on the displaydevice, from the user, of anon-transparent single subcube within theselected vector of co-linear subcubes which selects a vendor able tomeet requirements for implementing the subservice for the selectednon-transparent single subcube, wherein the single subcube holds a totalimpact assessment score, a total vendor assessment score, and a totalrequirement assessment score respectively pertaining to an impact onspecified impact criteria of the subservice, the vendor, and therequirement associated with the single subcube; and in response to saidreceiving the selection of the single subcube, said processor generatingand displaying, by the display device, to the user an image of theselected single subcube, including displaying the total impactassessment score, the total vendor assessment score, and the totalrequirement assessment score respectively pertaining to the impact ofthe subservice, the vendor, and the requirement associated with thesingle subcube.
 2. The method of claim 1, said method furthercomprising: displaying a selected vector of the navigational cube,wherein the selected vector is oriented parallel to the first axis, thesecond axis, or the third axis.
 3. The method of claim 1, wherein theone or more planar sections of the navigational cube is a plurality ofplanar sections of the navigational cube.
 4. The method of claim 1,wherein each subcube having an associated subservice, vendor, andrequirement stores an associated first measure of an impact on specifiedimpact criteria of implementing each subservice, second measure of anextent to which each vendor is able to meet specified targets forspecified vendor assessment criteria with respect to each subservice,and third measure of an extent to which each vendor is able to meet eachrequirement for implementing each subservice, and wherein each subcubeis configured to display its stored first measure, second measure, andthird measure upon being selected by a selection device.
 5. The methodof claim 4, said method further comprising: said processor performing animpact assessment for each subservice to determine the first measure ofthe impact on specified impact criteria of implementing each subservice;said processor performing a vendors assessment for each subservice todetermine the second measure of the extent to which each vendor is ableto meet specified targets for specified vendor assessment criteria withrespect to each subservice; and said processor performing a requirementsassessment to determine the third measure of the extent to which eachvendor is able to meet each requirement for implementing eachsubservice.
 6. The method of claim 5, wherein the first measure is thetotal impact assessment score that is equal to a summation over aproduct of each impact criterion and a weight assigned to each impactcriterion: wherein the second measure is the total vendor assessmentscore that is equal to a summation over a product of a differencebetween a target and actual value of each vendor assessment criterionand a weight assigned to each vendor assessment criterion, wherein thevendor assessment criteria include a plurality of vendercharacteristics, and wherein each vendor characteristic is selected fromthe group consisting of completeness of the vendor's service, competenceof the vendor, quality of service and support provided by the vendor,the vendor's reputation, the vendor's references, the vendor's openness,and the vendor's relationship with the vendor's clients; and wherein thethird measure is a plurality of total requirement assessment scores,wherein each total requirement assessment score is specific to arespective requirement of the plurality of requirements and is equal toa product of a score indicative of each vendor's ability to meet therespective requirement and a weight assigned to the respectiverequirement pertaining to each subservice.
 7. The method of claim 5,said method further comprising: said processor storing the firstmeasure, the second measure, and the third measure in a data store ofthe computer system.
 8. A computer program product, comprising acomputer readable hardware storage device storing software code portionsthat, upon being executed on a processor of a computer system, perform amethod for using a graphical user interface (GUI) for display andnavigation of a three-dimensional navigational cube to assess vendors ofvarying capability for meeting requirements of a service provider fordeploying a selected service in a service delivery environment, saidmethod comprising: said processor generating and displaying, by adisplay device of the computer system, to a user a three-dimensionalnavigational cube configured to be navigated, said navigational cubealigned along three mutually orthogonal axes that include a first axis,a second axis, and a third axis, wherein subservices of a plurality ofsubservices that the service provider must have in order for the serviceprovider to implement the selected service, vendors able to implement atleast one subservice of the plurality of subservices, and requirementsstipulated by the service provider that are to be met for implementingthe plurality of subservices by the plurality of vendors arerespectively represented on the first axis, the second axis, and thethird axis to define a subcube at each unique combination of subservice,vendor, and requirement, wherein said displaying the navigational cubecomprises displaying each subcube as being transparent ornon-transparent such that the displayed subcubes comprise at least onetransparent subcube and one or more non-transparent subcubes, whereineach transparent subcube denotes an indication that said each vendor onthe second axis is unable to meet said each requirement on the thirdaxis for implementing said each subservice on the first axis, whereineach non-transparent subcube denotes an indication that said each vendoron the second axis is able to meet said each requirement on the thirdaxis for implementing said each subservice on the first axis, whereineach face of each non-transparent subcube is orthogonal to the firstaxis, the second axis, or the third axis and is colored with a firstcolor, a second color, and a third color, respectively, and as aconsequence, each face of the navigational cube that is orthogonal tothe first axis, the second axis, or the third axis is colored with thefirst color, the second color, or the third color, respectively, andwherein the first color, the second color, and the third color aredifferent colors; after said displaying the navigational cube, saidprocessor receiving a selection on the display device, from the user, ofone or more planar sections of the navigational cube, wherein eachselected planar section is independently orthogonal to the first axis,the second axis, or the third axis and is characterized by thesubservices, the vendors, or the requirements, respectively, having asame value for each subcube in each planar section; in response to saidreceiving the selection of each planar section, said processorgenerating and displaying, by the display device, to the user an imageof each selected planar section by isolating each selected planarsection within the navigational cube and transforming each isolatedselected planar section to the displayed image of each isolated selectedplanar section, wherein said displaying each selected planar sectioncomprises depicting each subcube in each selected planar section asbeing transparent or non-transparent and displaying each exposed face ofeach non-transparent subcube in each selected planar section as coloredwith the first color, the second color, or the third color if eachselected planar section is orthogonal to the first axis, the secondaxis, or the third axis, respectively; after said displaying the imageof one planar section of the one or more selected planar sections, saidprocessor receiving a selection on the display device, from the user, ofa vector of co-linear subcubes within the one planar section, wherein ifthe one planar section is orthogonal to the first axis, the second axis,or the third axis, then the selected vector of co-linear subcubes isparallel to either the second or third axis, the first or third axis, orthe first or second axis, respectively; in response to said receivingthe selection of the vector of co-linear subcubes, said processorgenerating and displaying, by the display device, to the user an imageof the selected vector of co-linear subcubes; after said displaying theimage of the selected vector of co-linear subcubes, said processorreceiving a selection on the display device, from the user, of anon-transparent single subcube within the selected vector of co-linearsubcubes which selects a vendor able to meet requirements forimplementing the subservice for the selected non-transparent singlesubcube, wherein the single subcube holds a total impact assessmentscore, a total vendor assessment score, and a total requirementassessment score respectively pertaining to an impact on specifiedimpact criteria of the subservice, the vendor, and the requirementassociated with the single subcube; and in response to said receivingthe selection of the single subcube, said processor generating anddisplaying, by the display device, to the user an image of the selectedsingle subcube, including displaying the total impact assessment score,the total vendor assessment score, and the total requirement assessmentscore respectively pertaining to the impact of the subservice, thevendor, and the requirement associated with the single subcube.
 9. Thecomputer program product of claim
 8. said method further comprising:displaying a selected vector of the navigational cube, wherein theselected vector is oriented parallel to the first axis, the second axis,or the third axis.
 10. The computer program product of claim
 8. whereinthe one or more planar sections of the navigational cube is a pluralityof planar sections of the navigational cube.
 11. The computer programproduct of claim
 8. wherein each subcube having an associatedsubservice, vendor, and requirement stores an associated first measureof an impact on specified impact criteria of implementing eachsubservice, second measure of an extent to which each vendor is able tomeet specified targets for specified vendor assessment criteria withrespect to each subservice, and third measure of an extent to which eachvendor is able to meet each requirement for implementing eachsubservice, and wherein each subcube is configured to display its storedfirst measure, second measure, and third measure upon being selected bya selection device.
 12. The computer program product of claim 11, saidmethod further comprising: said processor performing an impactassessment for each subservice to determine the first measure of theimpact on specified impact criteria of implementing each subservice;said processor performing a vendors assessment for each subservice todetermine the second measure of the extent to which each vendor is ableto meet specified targets for specified vendor assessment criteria withrespect to each subservice; and said processor performing a requirementsassessment to determine the third measure of the extent to which eachvendor is able to meet each requirement for implementing eachsubservice.
 13. The computer program product of claim 12, wherein thefirst measure is the total impact assessment score that is equal to asummation over a product of each impact criterion and a weight assignedto each impact criterion: wherein the second measure is the total vendorassessment score that is equal to a summation over a product of adifference between a target and actual value of each vendor assessmentcriterion and a weight assigned to each vendor assessment criterion,wherein the vendor assessment criteria include a plurality of vendercharacteristics, and wherein each vendor characteristic is selected fromthe group consisting of completeness of the vendor's service, competenceof the vendor, quality of service and support provided by the vendor,the vendor's reputation, the vendor's references, the vendor's openness,and the vendor's relationship with the vendor's clients; and wherein thethird measure is a plurality of total requirement assessment scores,wherein each total requirement assessment score is specific to arespective requirement of the plurality of requirements and is equal toa product of a score indicative of each vendor's ability to meet therespective requirement and a weight assigned to the respectiverequirement pertaining to each subservice.
 14. The computer programproduct of claim 12, said method further comprising: said processorstoring the first measure, the second measure, and the third measure ina data store of the computer system.
 15. A computer system comprising aprocessor and a computer readable memory device coupled to theprocessor, said memory device containing software code portions thatwhen executed by the processor implement a method for using a graphicaluser interface (GUI) for display and navigation of a three-dimensionalnavigational cube to assess vendors of varying capability for meetingrequirements of a service provider for deploying a selected service in aservice delivery environment, said method comprising: said processorgenerating and displaying, by a display device of the computer system,to a user a three-dimensional navigational cube configured to benavigated, said navigational cube aligned along three mutuallyorthogonal axes that include a first axis, a second axis, and a thirdaxis, wherein subservices of a plurality of subservices that the serviceprovider must have in order for the service provider to implement theselected service, vendors able to implement at least one subservice ofthe plurality of subservices, and requirements stipulated by the serviceprovider that are to be met for implementing the plurality ofsubservices by the plurality of vendors are respectively represented onthe first axis, the second axis, and the third axis to define a subcubeat each unique combination of subservice, vendor, and requirement,wherein said displaying the navigational cube comprises displaying eachsubcube as being transparent or non-transparent such that the displayedsubcubes comprise at least one transparent subcube and one or morenon-transparent subcubes, wherein each transparent subcube denotes anindication that said each vendor on the second axis is unable to meetsaid each requirement on the third axis for implementing said eachsubservice on the first axis, wherein each non-transparent subcubedenotes an indication that said each vendor on the second axis is ableto meet said each requirement on the third axis for implementing saideach subservice on the first axis, wherein each face of eachnon-transparent subcube is orthogonal to the first axis, the secondaxis, or the third axis and is colored with a first color, a secondcolor, and a third color, respectively, and as a consequence, each faceof the navigational cube that is orthogonal to the first axis, thesecond axis, or the third axis is colored with the first color, thesecond color, or the third color, respectively, and wherein the firstcolor, the second color, and the third color are different colors; aftersaid displaying the navigational cube, said processor receiving aselection on the display device, from the user, of one or more planarsections of the navigational cube, wherein each selected planar sectionis independently orthogonal to the first axis, the second axis, or thethird axis and is characterized by the subservices, the vendors, or therequirements, respectively, having a same value for each subcube in eachplanar section; in response to said receiving the selection of eachplanar section, said processor generating and displaying, by the displaydevice, to the user an image of each selected planar section byisolating each selected planar section within the navigational cube andtransforming each isolated selected planar section to the displayedimage of each isolated selected planar section, wherein said displayingeach selected planar section comprises depicting each subcube in eachselected planar section as being transparent or non-transparent anddisplaying each exposed face of each non-transparent subcube in eachselected planar section as colored with the first color, the secondcolor, or the third color if each selected planar section is orthogonalto the first axis, the second axis, or the third axis, respectively;after said displaying the image of one planar section of the one or moreselected planar sections, said processor receiving a selection on thedisplay device, from the user, of a vector of co-linear subcubes withinthe one planar section, wherein if the one planar section is orthogonalto the first axis, the second axis, or the third axis, then the selectedvector of co-linear subcubes is parallel to either the second or thirdaxis, the first or third axis, or the first or second axis,respectively; in response to said receiving the selection of the vectorof co-linear subcubes, said processor generating and displaying, by thedisplay device, to the user an image of the selected vector of co-linearsubcubes; after said displaying the image of the selected vector ofco-linear subcubes, said processor receiving a selection on the displaydevice, from the user, of a non-transparent single subcube within theselected vector of co-linear subcubes which selects a vendor able tomeet requirements for implementing the subservice for the selectednon-transparent single subcube, wherein the single subcube holds a totalimpact assessment score, a total vendor assessment score, and a totalrequirement assessment score respectively pertaining to an impact onspecified impact criteria of the subservice, the vendor, and therequirement associated with the single subcube; and in response to saidreceiving the selection of the single subcube, said processor generatingand displaying, by the display device, to the user an image of theselected single subcube, including displaying the total impactassessment score, the total vendor assessment score, and the totalrequirement assessment score respectively pertaining to the impact ofthe subservice, the vendor, and the requirement associated with thesingle subcube.
 16. The computer system of claim
 15. said method furthercomprising: displaying a selected vector of the navigational cube,wherein the vector is oriented parallel to the first axis, the secondaxis, or the third axis.
 17. The computer system of claim 15, whereinthe one or more planar sections of the navigational cube is a pluralityof planar sections of the navigational cube.
 18. The computer system ofclaim 15, wherein each subcube having an associated subservice, vendor,and requirement stores an associated first measure of an impact onspecified impact criteria of implementing each subservice, secondmeasure of an extent to which each vendor is able to meet specifiedtargets for specified vendor assessment criteria with respect to eachsubservice, and third measure of an extent to which each vendor is ableto meet each requirement for implementing each subservice, and whereineach subcube is configured to display its stored first measure, secondmeasure, and third measure upon being selected by a selection device.19. The computer system of claim 18, said method further comprising:said processor performing an impact assessment for each subservice todetermine the first measure of the impact on specified impact criteriaof implementing each subservice; said processor performing a vendorsassessment for each subservice to determine the second measure of theextent to which each vendor is able to meet specified targets forspecified vendor assessment criteria with respect to each subservice;and said processor performing a requirements assessment to determine thethird measure of the extent to which each vendor is able to meet eachrequirement for implementing each subservice.
 20. The computer system ofclaim 19, wherein the first measure is the total impact assessment scorethat is equal to a summation over a product of each impact criterion anda weight assigned to each impact criterion: wherein the second measureis the total vendor assessment score that is equal to a summation over aproduct of a difference between a target and actual value of each vendorassessment criterion and a weight assigned to each vendor assessmentcriterion, wherein the vendor assessment criteria include a plurality ofvender characteristics, and wherein each vendor characteristic isselected from the group consisting of completeness of the vendor'sservice, competence of the vendor, quality of service and supportprovided by the vendor, the vendor's reputation, the vendor'sreferences, the vendor's openness, and the vendor's relationship withthe vendor's clients; and wherein the third measure is a plurality oftotal requirement assessment scores, wherein each total requirementassessment score is specific to a respective requirement of theplurality of requirements and is equal to a product of a scoreindicative of each vendor's ability to meet the respective requirementand a weight assigned to the respective requirement pertaining to eachsubservice.